
/.-r^.-y^ %'.;^'-/ *^/-Tr..'y 







'%,^^ 

.^'\ 

















.r.-j^«,-o, w^-^^-.^ o«^:^^^% 




No. 1. 



THE LAW AND THE TESTIMONY CONCERN- 
ING SLAVERY. 



*' Ye have caused many to stunible at the Law." 

Malachi ii : 8. 



I. INTRODUCTION. DEFINITION AND APPLICATION OF TERMS. 

In these pages we seek a solution of the inquiry: Does the 
Bible give any warrant or allowance to chattel Slavery'? "We 
design the plainest possible exposition of Scriptural truths to the 
common mind, with a faithful appeal to the reader's mind and 
conscience — that other universal law which God has written in 
the human heart, a law to which he ever appeals throughout the 
aacred volume. 

We will assume, with the concurrence of the reader : 

1. That the Bible is of Divine, and hence, of supreme authority 
concerning the law and government of God; and also concerning 
all the rights, and duties, and sins of men, and of all laws made 
by them, in all the relations of the present life. 

2. 'That between these two laws of God — revelation and common 
or natural law, as originally written on the heart of man — there 
is, in fact, entire harmony. 

3. That if on any subject there is, owing to our fallen, sinful 
state, an apparent conflict between them, we should re-examine 
our interpretation of Scripture, on the one hand, and scrutinize 
our hearts on the other; ever bearing in mind that God's word 
must be the paramount standard. 

4. That an appeal to either law, on a practical question in 
morals, will secure a reliable decision ; and a concurrent decision, 
faithfully made from both, makes a matter doubly sure. 

5. That if God has said anything in the Bible in approbation 
of Slavery — a matter confessedly injurious in many ways — he 



^ THE LAW AND THE TESTIMONY 

must have " used great plainness of speech," so that " he that 
runs may read" the fact. 

It is lamentably true, that the popular mind is extremely 
unsettled concerning the moral aspects of slavery. Conflicting 
opinions and dogmas prevail, embracing every conceivable prin- 
ciple, from utter condemnation to complete justification by the 
oracles of God. The inquiry before us, therefore, is difficult of 
solution; but it would be wrong to say we can not find the truth, 
if we are willing to come to the light. 

But we can not judge correctly of the moral cliaracier of 
Slaver}^, till we first know what chattel Slaveiy really is. And 
here, again, multitudes have false, confused, or defective views 
of the system or practice. They have not studied the subject; 
are misguided by pro-slavery perversions of language ; and, 
though possibly "teachers of the law," actually "understand not 
what they say, nor whereof they affirm" on the momentous 
subject. 

At the outset, therefore, we attempt a definition of a few prin- 
cipal terms which often occur in our discussions. 

A Slave is a human being, who is seized, held, subjugated, 
controlled, and used by another human being as a chattel, a 
thing, a beast, the property of his " owner, to all intents, con- 
structions, and purposes whatsoever." 

A Slaveholder is one who thus seizes, holds, subjugates, con- 
trols, and uses a human being as his property. 

Slavery is the state or condition of i3ersons so held as property. 
Or, to speak more definitely, 

Chattel Slavery is the condition of human beings converted 
into chattels and used as such ; including their labors, sufferings, 
disabilities, and liabilities appropriate to that condition, accord- 
ing to the customs of slaveholders, and the laws of slaveholding 
communities. 

Slaveholding is the jjractice, in which every slaveholder in- 
dulges, of taking and using human beings as property. In every 
case there are two parties concerned and connected, the enslaver 
and the enslaved; a man and a chattel. The former is alone 
the free, acting, responsible party in forming and continuing the 
connection. It is absurd to hold the slave responsible for being 



CONCERNING SLAVERY. ^ 

in that condition, seeing he is there by compulsion. In correct 
language, therefore, slaveholding is the subject of our inquiry, 
and not the state or condition of slaves. Does God sanction the 
practice of slaveholders ? 

Again, the terms servant^ servitude, and service, are often in- 
juriously misapplied on this subject. True, slaves are desired 
for their unrequited labor, and are "made to serve with rigor." 
But the word servant belongs to children, apprentices, hired 
laborers, citizens of the republic, members of the Christian broth- 
erhood, ministers of the Gospel, the elect angels, and Christ, the 
Son of the Father, The name is too good to be applied to our 
bondmen. It does not distinguish or designate the class, which 
is anomalous and peculiar. They are driven to service like bul- 
locks subdued to the yoke, and slave is their descriptive name. 
So in legal documents, slaveholders and their abettors affect to 
claim and secure slaves as "persons held to service or labor under 
the laws of a state," when it is conceded that slaves are not so 
held, and Avhen it is obvious that a chattel can not be a ^'-person,'' 
or a person an article of property. But thus it is that by legal 
fictions they hold fast their vassals. 

Servitude is not always Slavery. It is the state or condition 
of persons, often tribes or nations, who are required to be subject 
to some superior power. The authority of the rulers may be 
either legitimate or usurped; their demands just or unjust. But 
if the subject party is not made the property of the higher power, 
the servitude is not Slavery. The subjects may be fearfully 
oppressed, but they are not slaves. Their lords may be tyrants, 
but they are not slaveholders. Let it be remembered, that the 
compulsory servitude of our African slaves is chattel Slavery. 
We shall find, in the Bible, an account of a very different 
servitude. 

We also, unwarily, give strength to oppression and injustice, 
by conceding that Slavery is an institutioyi, as the South arro- 
gantly claims ; an institution, legal, patriarchal, Scriptural, pecu- 
liar, and at length Divine. Being established " for better or for 
worse," it must be held as inviolable and unassailable as the 
Federal Government, or the Union of the states. But slaveholding 
is simply a practice, and not an institution. Jt is not established 



4 THE LAW AND THE TESTIMOXY 

or organized as such in the Union, or any State, or any Church; 
by any authority, real or pretended, legitimate or usurped. 

We also err exceedingly by regarding Slavery as a sysiem^ 
which slaveholders seem to submit to, as a power above them ; 
a mighty automaton, which compels them to do all the mischief, 
while they are but its "unwilling" servants. But "the system" « 
is a nondescript, a fiction of the imagination. Slaveholders are, 
indeed, harmonious in spirit and principle, systematic and mutvf- 
ally helpful in their practices, from Maryland to Texas. Church 
and State, we admit, protect them in their doings. But this 
"combination of parts into a whole" is effected solely by the 
voluntary action of individual slaveholders. Let them relinquish 
their '■'■practices,'' and both "the system" and "the institution" 
would vanish "like a dream when man awaketh." But no 
power can destroy or remove either, while the practices are 
suffered to continue. First and last, therefore, we have to deal 
with slaveholdi/ig, the practice of individuals. 

ir. THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SLAVEHOLDING. THE 

ASSUMED PREROGATIVES OF THE SLAVEHOLDER. 

Every slaveholder claims the right, 

1. To own and use human beings as his property, and dispose 
of them at his pleasure, independently of their will ; including 
all transfers and sales, and the slave-trade, both domestic and 
foreign. 

2. To own and use the children of his female slaves, by his 
ownership of their mother. 

3. To extort service or labor from his slaves without a con- 
tract and without recompense- 

4. To subject them to his absolute command and control, as 
to all their relations, and actions, and interests; and 

5. To secure his possession and power by holding his vassals 
accountable to himself alone, as lawgiver, and judge, and executor 
of his own sovereign decrees; which leads him to the adoption 
of measures which are fearfully oppressive. For, 

a. lie compels the annihilation of the marriage relation and 
the family state. 



CONCERNING SLAVERY. -0 

h. He denies them the knowledge of God their Savior, or 
imparts it in kind and quantity according to his own sovereign 
will. 

c. He denies them the power of acquiring property, of making 
contracts, of enjoying any of the "inalienable rights" of man, 
excepting only the right to live — -foi- their '■^ masters.^' 

d. The exercise of such absolute power induces the infliction 
of cruelties, at the thought of which humanity shudders; inso- 
much that candid slaveholders have said, " cruelty is the rule, 
kindness the exception." 

6. The slaveholder also claims, that his prerogatives and powers 
are secured to him, if not granted, by the laws of the state and 
the nation. 

Differences of administration there are, beyond question, as 
among the absolute monarchs of larger empires. Yet, within 
his own domain, every actual vslave-owner is a self-constituted 
autocrat, both in principle and practice; not exerting all his 
assumed powers, every day, to the fullest extent; but holding 
them in reserve with a desperate grasp, for use Avhen occasions 
require. Call in question any of these assumed rights or pre- 
rogatives, and the mildest master will reply, " It is lawful for me 
to do what I will with my own." 

From this statement of the position and powers of the slave- 
holder, the condition of the slaves can be readily apprehended ; 
their subjugation, sufferings, disabilities, and hopeless bondage. 
But the full bitterness of their cup none can know but they 
that drink it. 



Ill, THE RELATION BETWEEN MASTER AND SLAVE. 

There is much disputation on the question, whether this rela- 
tion is in itself wrong or sinful. To decide upon its moral 
character we need first to consider well what the relation is ; 
how, by whom, and for what purpose it is formed and sustained; 
and how it compares with other human relations. We do not 
inquire concerning the relations of man to the brutes and inani- 
mate tilings, nor of his peculiar relations to Jehovah, but of 
his relations to one or more of his own race. 



6 THE LAW AND THE TESTIMONY 

Those which we term natural relations are formed by God, our 
Maker, at our birth. Each child is born into two human rela- 
tions or connections; one with his parents, one with the whole 
family of man. In the former, creation, nature, providence, and 
the Divine law, all unite in giving parental affection and authority 
to the parents, filial love and obedience to the child. In the 
latter, nature and revelation connect the new comer in love and 
duty to the universal brotherhood, and every cotemporary brother 
to him. These relations are formed without the consent or 
knowledge of the coming man. But if he consent to live, and 
act, and enjoy his rights on earth, he must ever stand in his 
relations, and discharge the appropriate duties. In a qualified 
sense, also, the connection of the child and the future man with 
civil government is a natural relation, formed originally without 
his choice. His birth places him under some " power ordained 
of God," to which he owes allegiance, from which he is entitled 
to protection under a righteous administration. 

Very many human relations are formed by the free consent and 
mutual agreement of parties. These, if formed for a right pur- 
pose, and according to God's law, are of a moral character, 
involving mutual rights and reciprocal duties. 

Of the voluntary relations which are right, being sanctioned 
by the word of God, the conjugal is the chief This relation is 
conformable to nature, but is formed only by mutual contract, at 
a mature age. It is regulated by express law, given at the 
creation, by which our Maker " setteth the solitary in families " 
throughout all the earth. Many other voluntary relations are 
formed among men, which God approves and regulates; but we 
need not specify them here. 

But voluntary connections for wicked purposes, or employing 
unlawful means, are doubly wicked. The Jews who " banded 
together to kill Paul" were related to each other as guilty con- 
spirators; and to him, as his intended murderers. Voluntary 
partners in iniquity will be utterly confounded when they stand 
together before the judgment-seat. 

Individuals, also, form connections with others by their own 
purpose and act alone, Avithout previous concurrence ; and thus 
sustain relations to them in consequence. The party so doing 



CONCERNING SLAVERY. 7 

is answerable for the moral character of the relation, whether it 
be good or bad. The benefactor of the poor and needy, of the 
fatherless and the widow, stands in a just and blessed relation to 
them, even though they know him not. On the contrary, the 
swindler, the thief, the seducer, forms a relation to his victim 
which he will carry into eternity, unless he repent and make all 
possible restitution. So the murderer, restitution being impos- 
sible, Avill meet his murdered brother as a swift witness against 
him before their final Judge. 

Now the relation in question is not formed by the free, mutual 
consent of the parties; and has nothing of reciprocity, either in 
its origin or continuance. Every slave in the Union is taken 
by might alone; and is held by force, without contract and with- 
out recompense. 

This is not a natural relation. Natural birth did not make 
those who were born in Africa slaves in this country. They 
were stolen, transported, and sold to Americans. Their descend- 
ants, nearly all now in bondage, are natives here; and it is 
common to say, "they are born slaves." So the "owner" of the 
enslaved mother takes her children as his vendible property, 
precisely as he does his calves and colts. He does this by his 
own sovereign will, according to custom and law in slaveholding 
states. But is the child "born a slave?" To assert it is false 
and absurd. It comes into the world a human being, not a beast. 
Its natural relation as an infant is to its actual parents, not to 
the mother's owner. But he, with ruthless hand, snatches it from 
their embrace, forbids their being its owners and guardians, and 
converts it into a chattel— a slave. Nay more, he may be him- 
self the father— a frequent occurrence- and the child is at once 
put out of all its natural relations to human beings. Should he 
place it among the children by his married wife, he would lose 
caste among his fellows, in everlasting disgrace. 

Thus the relation in question is formed and continued. It is 
commenced by the power and sovereign will of the individual 
slaveholder, "for the sake of gain," or property, with the express 
and sole purpose of holding and using that possession, that 
human chattel, without restraint or limit. And while he con- 
tinues his practice, he prolongs the relation. The relation and 



O THE LAW AND THE TESTIMONY 

the practice, therefore, have the same moral character; both are 
right, or both are wicked. One who voluntarily stands in the 
relation of a slaveholder must be regarded as sanctioning the 
principles, and doing the deeds of a slaveholder. 

It is also a solemn consideration, that the most lenient slave- 
holder sustains very intimate relations to all engaged in the traffic 
in all its forms; closely allied to slave-traders, "soul-drivers," 
slave-breeders, and kidnappers, at home and abroad ; confederates 
all, one in principle, doing essentially the same work. 

Have these relations any warrant or allowance in the sacred 
volume? 

IV. SERVITUDE AJMONG THE HEBREWS NOT SLAVERY. 

Slaveholders claim that Moses either established or regulated 
Slavery among the Hebrews, in the land of promise; and that 
God, therefore, allows it in the United States. One sufficient 
reply to this claim is, that that servitude was essentially different 
from chattel Slavery. This has been clearly shown of late years 
by able writers;* and we need give the point only a brief notice 
here. 

God did permit the Hebrews to employ servants of two classes: 
(1.) Of their Hebrew brethren; and (2.) Of their heathen neigh- 
bors. The former were called "hired servants;" the latter, 
"bondmen and bondmaids." 

1. Of Hebrew servants \\q remark, (see Exodus xxi:) 1, Servants 
were obtained by contract, or mutual agreement. 2. The buyer 
procured service, not property in man; and the purchase-money 
was compensation for labor, not the price of "the bodies and 
souls of men." 3. The rights of the servants were carefully 
secured and guarded by law. 4. Their families were received 
and supported by their employers. 5. Every Hebrew servant 
went "free for nothing in the seventh year" of his servitude, 
if he chose; not "empty," but "furnished liberally," out of his 
employers flock, and floor, and wine-press. (Dcut. xv: 12-15.) 
6. If a servant, loving his master, refused to leave in the seventh 
year, "the judges" declared his time of service prolonged; but 

■•' T. D. WelJ, W. Goodell, G. B. CLeever, and writers in auticilavery periodicals. 






CONCERNING SLAVERY. 9 

even he must fj;© out in " the year of jubilee." (Ex. xxi : 5, 6, 
compared with Deut. xxv: 39-42.) 7. If a master, at any time, 
maimed his servant in smiting him, he was required to free him 
at once. 

No chattel Slavery there. The relation was formed hj consent 
of the parties, and not by force; it was one of mutual interests 
and reciprocal obligations. The master was not a sovereign 
dictator ; the servant was not — a slave. 

2. Of Heathen servants. Read with attention Lev. xxv: 44-46 : 
"Both thy bondmen and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, 
shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall 
ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover, of the children of 
the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, 
and of their families that are with you, which they beget in your 
land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take thera 
as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for 
a possession; they shall be your bondmen forever." 

Also Ex. xxi: 16: "He that stealeth a man, and selleth him, 
or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death." 

A comparison of these and other scriptures may help us to 
decide whether God allowed the Hebrews to enslave their hea- 
then neighbors. 

Professor Stuart, in a work intended as a defense of Christian 
slaveholders and slave-catchers, remarked : " Moses is not under- 
stood as giving command^ but permission." And again: "We 
have here an unlimited liberty to purchase (not to steal) 
bondmen." 

"Not to steal" men. No, surely. God would not allow Moses 
to enact one law against another in the same code. Neither 
would Moses so stultify himself. The above "permission" 
in Leviticus could not repeal, or annul, or subvert the ex- 
press prohibitory law in Exodus. On the two enactments we 
remark : 

1. The law in Exodus punishes with death each one of the 
three essential practices pertaining to our "system" of Slavery, 
viz: (a.) the stealing of a man; (6.) the selling (and of course 
the huying) of a stolen man, the traffic in all its forms ; and (c. ) 
the holding of a stolen man, or, restraining him of his liberty 



10 THE LAW AND THE TESTIMONY 

for life, or for a day. Therefore, Moses did not grant "permis- 
sion " to steal, or sell, or buy, or hold human beings as chattels, 

2. To " bay " heathen, therefore, was to jjrocure theii' services^ 
not their bodies and souls. And this was to be done by volun- 
tary contract with the persons themselves, or with their parents 
and guardians. Perhaps the heathen tribes might sell the serv- 
ices of vagabonds, criminals, and prisoners taken in war. 

3. The "possession" of bondmen, thus granted to the Hebrews, 
could have been only a right to possess or retain their services ; 
i^nd the "inheritance" allowed to their children was nothing 
more. 

4. The word " forever " must have applied only to the perpetuity 
of this grant, and not to the hereditary and perpetual enslave- 
inent of human beings, for which there is here no shadoAV of a 
warrant. 

5. God expressly required that their servitude should terminate 
in the year of jubilee. Lev. xxv: 10: "And ye shall hallow the 
fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto 
all the inhabitants thereof" 

6. The condition of heathen "bondmen" among the Hebrews 
was essentially different from that of a slave. They were pro- 
tected against oppression ; were allowed to become religious 
proselytes ; were entitled to a large portion of time for religious 
observances; were not stripped of their rights as men. If their 
yoke was made grievous they might flee, and every Hebrew 
dwelling was made for them a legal asylum. Deut. xxiii: 15, 16 : 
"Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is 
escaped from his master unto thee. He shall dwell Avith thee, 
even among you in that place which he shall choose, in one of 
thy gates, where it liketh him best. Thou shalt not oppress 
him." 

Such was the servitude of heathens among Hebrews which 
Moses alloAved, having none of the essential attributes of chattel 
Slavery. Evidently'- it was a merciful Divine appointment, pro- 
viding for their introduction to the knowledge of the true God, 
and their adoption into his family. Well might Albert Barnes 
say, "Sad is it that the mild and benignant enactments of the 
Hebrew legislator should ever be appealed to, to sanction the 



CONCERXINO SLAVERY. 11 

wrongs and outrages of the poor African in this land of freedom ; 
sad, that the ministers of religion should ever prostitute their 
high oflBce to give countenance to such a system, by maintaining, 
or even conceding far a moment^ that the Mosaic laws sanction 
the wrongs and oppressions existing in the United States." Yet, 
since Barnes thus wrote, our chattel Slavery is justified by the 
authority of Moses, and of Israel's God, with tenfold more fre- 
quency and urgency than before. 

7. Even if Uod did allow the Hebrews to enslave the heathen, 
still we must maintain that tlie grant was exceptional and tem- 
pora.rij. Exceptional, because it was contrary to natural and 
moral law; and contrary, as we have seen, to the specific statute 
which forbade man-stealing, slaveholding, and the traffic. It was 
temporary, because the bondage soon ceased. 

8. If God did, by his special messenger, authorize his peculiar 
people, in the land of promise, to enslave a people whose measure 
of iniquity he declared to be full, he does not thereby authorize 
Ainei'icans to enslave Africans. He has sent no Moses to give 
us a commission and designate the people whom he would give 
us for a spoil. 

9. If we justify our slaveholding by the law of Moses, then we 
are solemnly hound to obey his entire code. Let us, therefore, 
" take counsel, execute judgment, hide the outcasts, and bewray 
not him that wandereth." Let the fugitive slave, "hunted as a 
partridge upon the mountains " by human blood-hounds, no more 
cry, " In the way wherein I walked have the}' privily laid a snare 
for me. I looked on my right hand and beheld, but there was 
no man that would know me ; refuge failed me ; no man cared 
for my soul." Let the people set the trumpet to their mouth, 
and " proclaim liberty throughout all the land, unto all the 
inhabitants thereof" Four times fifty years have already passed. 
A few hundreds of bondmen are multiplied to millions. Still 
their hopes of redemption perish, and their groaning goes up 
to Israel's God, while we refuse to obey his voice, and let the 
people go. 



12 THE LAW AXD THE TESTIMONY 



V. DIRECT BIBLE TESTIMONY. PLEAS FOR SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED. 

Does God in his word expressly sanction the practice ? Does 
he tolerate it by evident implication? Does he treat it as a fla- 
grant sin, but one not to be meddled with ? 

1. Did God appoint chattel Slavery, or render the practice of 
it unavoidable, at the creation; either {a.) by forming black 
bipeds, animals without souls, like apes or baboons; or (6.) by 
creating one class of human beings of an inferior race, fit only 
for servile drudges? Both these impious notions have been 
urged, to justify or excuse our arbitrary domination. The first 
plea is of late seldom avowed openly ; the second is heard every 
hour of the day. 

Many would, doubtless, be glad to believe that their slaves 
w^ere beasts by nature, and not made such by their oppression. 
And truly they deny them the attributes and rights of men, and 
their law-books expressly style them *' beasts," and "quadrupeds." 
Yet they hold their vassals responsible as moral agents, having 
understanding and conscience — subjects of rewards and punish- 
ments — and amenable to their "masters," if not to God. Thus 
slaveholders, who think or say that Africans are mere animals, 
refute their own plea, and are condemned out of their own 
mouths. Besides, if slaves of pure African blood are mere brutish 
animals, where shall we rank the mulattoes, and what is the moral 
character of the fathers who begat them? 

But the advocates of Slavery now generally plead that Africans, 
though they are human beings, are an inferior race, abject and 
servile, created to be ever in subjection to whites, who are " tlie 
lords of creation." Now what facts and moral teachings do we 
learn from the Bible, either in support or refutation of both 
these pleas ?* 

We find that "God hath made of one blood all nations of men 
to dwell on all the face of the earth ; that at creation he made 
an immense distinction between man and all animals; man only 
becoming "a living soul," whose "spirit returns to God who 
gave it;" while that "of the beast goeth downward to the earthj" 

=:'• E.specially iu Genesis and the eightli rbulm. 



CONCERXING SLAVERY. 13 

that he expressly put animals in subjection to mankind, to all 
men equally; that while tribes and nations difier from each 
other, physically and intellectually, yet all are human heings, 
and there is only one human race; that God enjoined labor on 
the whole race, "commanding that if any would not work, 
neither should he eat;" that he gave no authority to a superior 
class to rule over another with rigor in any way, but everywhere 
commends those of low degree to greater sympathy, protection, 
and generous care ; that he expressly appointed marriage, and 
the family state in the beginning, and has sustained them by 
his word and his providence in all ages, guarding and defending 
them by prohibitions and penalties, and the judgments of his 
hand on transgressors. 

Manifestly, therefore, the slaveholder arrogates power which 
God never gave him, degrading his equal brethren to the condi- 
tion of servile brutes; "working not at all," but extorting labor 
and service without recompense; taking away all rights which 
God gave to them as to himself; and abrogating the law of mar- 
riage, compelling all manner of sexual licentiousness. How 
unlike is the slaveholder among men to "the Maker of them all." 
Jehovah, "though he be high, yet hath respect unto the lowly; 
but the proud he knoweth afar off. . . . He ruleth by his power 
forever; his eyes behold the nations; let not the rebellious exalt 
themselves." 

2. Has slaveholding the sanction of precedent"! 

Such is the pretense in legislative halls, and often in the 
assemblies of the saints. " Slavery has existed in all ages, and 
has become the established order of things, therefore we do no 
wrong, if we only mitigate its rigors." They plead the authority 
of Moses, and the example of those " good old patriarchs, Abra- 
ham, Isaac, and Jacob," perverting the law of Moses, as we have 
seen; stigmatizing Abraham as a slaveholder, which he was not, 
and then justifying themselves by his example. They are not 
ashamed, moreover, to follow the pernicious ways of pagan Kome 
and other ungodly nations. 

But does the Bible teach that men may innocently repeat the 
deeds of wicked men, and walk after the course and fashion of 
this sinful world? Are the iniquities of men recorded as 



14 THE LAW AND THE TESTIMONY 

precedents for our imitation ? Are they not written solely for 
our admonition and solemn warning ? Other precedents are 
recorded also unto which we should give heed. God has been 
"known by the judgments that he executeth" in all ages; our 
righteous Judge, who declared in the holy mount, " I, Jehovah, 
thy God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers 
upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them 
that hate rae." 

3. Is the practice sanctioned hy the laios of Entailment or 
Inheritance f 

Ho they say, and hide their personal responsibility under cover 
of an inheritance — a curse though it be — which they can not 
throw off. Recreant Northerners, also, marrying fortunes in 
slaves, or otherwise becoming slaveholders, wipe their mouths 
and say, " We have done no wrong ; the evil is entailed upon 
us; we can not help it." 

Do they mean, by this, that the views, and spirit, and purpose 
of the slaveholder are usually transmitted to his children, and 
live and reign in him? We concede the fact, which is testified 
by Jefferson and numerous competent authorities. But the Bible 
does not teach that a child is blameless, who imbibes the spirit, 
and follows the guidance, and does the deeds of a sinning parent. 
What mean ye, that ye use this proverb in a Christian land, 
saying, "The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's 
teeth are set on edge." As the statement of a fact it is often 
true; as an excuse for sin, it is always false and mischievous. 

Property, however, can be rightfully bequeathed and inherited. 
But human beings are not property. They can not be made 
such by stealing them, or vending, or holding, or giving, or be- 
queathing, or transferring, in any conceivable way, Now, man- 
stealing — a capital crime by the law of Moses — originated all the 
claim to his human chattels which any American slaveholder 
has ever had. This was clearly shown in the fourth chapter. 
And we need here only to remind the reader, that no man can 
convey to another what he does not possess. The father that 
bequeaths a stolen being as property, commits a great offense; 
the son who accepts and retains the bequest, hath even greater 
sin, O, that the sons and daughters of the iriouth would say, 



CONCERNING SLAVERY. 15 

with the young man of Kentucky, "I am a slaveholder's son, 
and an heir prospectively of slave property ; when I become a 
man, I'll see if this curse can be entailed on me." He did so; 
and the father released both his son and his human chattels from 
inglorious bonds, 

4. Can we claim for slaveholding a Providential Sanction ? 
Many console themselves in the belief that Slavery, grievous 

as it is, occurs in the providence of God, and is overruled for 
good by him who is wonderful in counsel, and excellent in work- 
ing. Providence brought the Africans here, and has thrown 
them upon us of the present generation, helpless and dependent 
Emancipation is impossible. We can only wait in patience till 
the same wise Providence shall open some way yet unknown to 
men. Meantime, their condition is vastly improved in regard to 
civilization, knowledge, and the hope of heaven. Both they and 
we must be reconciled to the allotment of Providence. 

Alas for the blindness that has happened to our offending 
Israel. Let God have all the praise of educing good from the 
evils that men do ; but let not men do evil that good may come, 
and charge God foolishly. When will they cease to ascribe their 
own wicked deeds to the sovereign providence of God, and say, 
"We are delivered to do all these abominations?" 

5. Has slaveholding the jjrophetic sanction f 

Yes, say the commentators, North and South. " Cursed be 
Canaan," said Noah, by the spirit of prophecy, " a servant of 
servants shall he be to his brethren." And so it is unto this 
day. Africans, the children of the accursed, have ever been 
debased and oppressed; crushed by "their brethren," the party 
exalted to poAver and dominion. It is of the Lord that "the 
Scriptures can not be broken;" we are but fulfilling the declared 
will of God; "Avhy doth he yet find fault ?" 

But to this plea there are tiiree conclusive replies, (a.) The 
curse is misapplied to the Africans; for they, though often de- 
based and servile, are not the descendants of Canaan, but of Ham 
by other sons whom Noah did not curse. These settled in the 
land of Canaan, or Palestine, and have ruled rather than served. 
{!),) The moral law, and not prophecy, determines the moral 
character of men's actions. They often fulfill predictions of 



16 THE LAAV AND THE TESTIMONY 

deeds, both evil and good, without a thought of " the word that 
went before concerning them." J?ut whether they act with or 
without regard to Divine predictions, men have their reward 
according to their own works. The righteous and beneficent, 
fulfilling his word and will, become " workers together with him" 
who is "wonderful in counsel and excellent in working." So 
kings and people may do against the Lord and his anointed the 
very things which " his hand and his counsel determined before 
to be done." Are the ofiPenses of the wicked foretold? So also 
are the woes threatened. The "betrayers and murderers" of 
Christ exactly fulfilled the words of the prophets and his own. 
AVere they, therefore, without blame ? Nay, verijy. Peter charges 
home upon them the guilt of crucifying the Lord of Glory; 
" Him being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknoAvl- 
edge of God, ye have taken, and with wicked hands have cruci- 
fied and slain." (c.) Besides, if God had expressly predicted the 
enslavement of Africans, where has he called or commissioned 
Anglo-Americans to do that work of death and destruction ? 
x\nd who can desire to receive such a charge ? Who would rot 
rather love to fulfill the promises of grace and salvation to every 
kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation? 

6. Is the plea of necessity valid .? 

Slaveholders plead the necessity of slave labor, because whites 
can network in a hot climate; of severe discipline, because no 
work or subjection can be secured Avithout it ; of withholding 
wages, for they can not afibrd to pay; of keeping slaves ignorant, 
lest they learn the way to freedom; of refusing emancipation, 
lest they turn and kill their masters ; of forbidding marriage and 
the family relation, lest the claims of husbands, wives, and 
parents should utterly subvert and destroy their own authority 
and possession. Now, all these and many more necessities do 
exist, if slaveholding must be and continue. But what must a 
practice be, which requires this plea for its defense ? 

" Thus spake the fiend, 
Aiul with iiccL'ssity, tho tjrant's plea. 
Excused Ihe devilisli deo<]." 

In the management of his moral government, God never neces- 
eitates the commission of sin. But if men sell themselves as 



CONCERNING SLAVERY. 17 

servants of unrighteousness, "drawing iniquity with cords of 
vanity, and sin as it were with a cart-rope," God will {it is a 
necessity of Jiis moral nature) give them to " eat of the fruit of 
their own way, and be filled with their own devices." 

7. Does any Divine law sanction slaveholding "} How do we 
read the Laws of Love^ of Righteousness^ of the K^^^cial Relations, 
of Dominion and Subjection^ of Recompense^ of Restitution^ and 
of Retribution 1 Do any of these look with favor on the assumed 
prerogatives and practices of the slaveholder? 

(1.) ^he Law of Love — the second great commandment, like 
unto the first, on which hang all the law and the prophets — "Thou 
shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" The " oAvner" loves his serv- 
ant as a slave; but surely not as an equal human being, a 
neighbor, a brother; for "love worketh no ill to one's neighbor." 
Love would not take from a brother all the rights of man. 

(2.) The Law of Righteousness, which is identical with that 
of Love; the one requiring right affections, the other right con- 
duct, so that right treatment of a brother is the fruit and evidence 
of cordial love to him. But if the conduct be unjust and inju- 
rious, how can love reign in the heart? "Whatsoever ye would 
that men should do to j^ou, do ye even so to them." Would the 
slaveholder agree that his slaves should do to him as he has long 
done to them ? The man does not live who would so say, in the 
fear of God. 

(3.) The Laio concerning the Social Relations; the revealed 
will of God concerning the rights and duties in the relations 
which God either sanctions or forbids. We have seen that the 
slaveholder thrusts himself into an unnatural and sinful relation 
to his brethren; and thus corrupts or destroys their relations 
also, that he may preserve his own interests and power. How 
can he answer for this when he stands with them at the judg- 
ment-seat? 

(4.) The Law of Dojninion and Subjection. God has appointed 
among men a right to command, and an obligation to obey. But 
he has nowhere conferred on any erring mortal arbitrary, abso- 
lute, irresponsible power; such as every slaveholder claims, and 
also exercises at his own sovereign will. We can easily see and 
condemn the usurpation of the pope, and other absolute mon- 



18 



THE LAW AND THE TESTIMONY 



archs. The former, according to a Catholic writer, exercises a 
government " fimdamentallj absolute, in which the legislative, 
judicial, and executive powers are united, compounded, and 
jumbled together in one and the same hand," Can it be that the 
"blessed and only Potentate" has authorized such despotism in 
this Christian land ? 

(5.) The Lmo of Recompense. Universal conscience agrees 
with the Bible, that "the laborer is worthy of his hire — of his 
reward." The slaveholder gives no wages, and denies his vassals' 
right to receive. What he bestows more than bare sustenance, 
he regards as a generous gratuity. Thus he becomes an ex- 
tortioner. The hire of his laborers crieth against him, and 
entereth into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. But now, though 
man ignores the doctrine of recompense, God will hold it in 
everlasting remembrance. He will " lay judgment to the line, 
and righteousness to the plummet." He will "recompense tribu- 
lation to them that trouble" the innocent and helpless; "rest to 
them who are troubled" by the extortioner and the oppressor. 

(6.) The Law of Restitution runs through the Bible, and is 
acknowledged in all the earth. Whatever one has taken away 
from another by treachery or violence, he is bound to restore, in 
full measure, if not fourfold; and as long as he refuses, he is a 
persistent robber and spoiler. If restitution is beyond his power, 
his iniquity may be confessed and forgiven ; but he will account 
himself a debtor to his injured brother forever. But here are 
millions of people, robbed of all lawful possessions and all rights, 
and scarcely one in a thousand ever receives or knows restitu- 
tion. "They are a people robbed and spoiled; all of them are 
snared in holes, and they are hid in prison-houses; they are for 
a prey, and none delivereth ; for a spoil, and none saiih, Kestore." 
And now, "Who among you will give ear to this?" It is the 
word of the Lord by Isaiah, (chap, xlii,) "who will hearken and 
hear for the time to come," and cease to "rob the poor and op- 
press the afflicted?" "For the Lord will plead their cause, and 
spoil the soul of those that spoil them. ' Let us then solemnly 
consider, 

(7.) The Law of Retrihniion. "The Avrath of God is revealed 
from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men;" 



CONCERNING SLAVERY. 19 

and falls upon the transgressors in this world or another, witJiout 
respect of persons. The momentous inquiry in the case before 
us is, lohich party is the guilty one in the sight of God; the en- 
slaver, or the enslaved ? Those who had never injured us, or we 
who have stolen and enslaved them ? Not thej, but we, are per- 
petuating injustice, oppression, extortion, inhumanity, and the 
turning away of the needy from his right ; crimes standing high 
on the catalogue of men's deeds of wickedness ; crimes most 
fearfully denounced in God's word; crimes signally punished in 
all past ages, "Avhen God arose to judgment to save all the 
meek of the earth." On us, therefore, will fearful judgment 
come (if repentance and restitution do not avert it) when God 
shall again say, " For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing 
of the needy, 7iow will I arise ; I will set him in safety from him 
that puffeth at him; the day of vengeance is in my heart, and 
the year of my redeemed is come." 0, that the long-suifering of 
God may be our salvation from the day of wrath. 

(8.) Does our Lord and Redeemer grant indulgence to the slave- 
holder ? How, when, where ? By his Spirit, his example, his 
word, his sufferings endured for all, or by his power and do- 
minion? He came to "preach deliverance to the captives, to 
heal the broken-hearted, to set at liberty them that are bruised." 
He died and rose, " that he might redeem us from all iniquity, 
and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works." 
His own dominion over his willing people is " righteousness, 
and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." They are all one in 
him; and he accounts good or evil done to the least of them as 
done to himself. This he will make manifest to the assembled 
universe, "when he shall come in his glory, and all his holy 
angels with him," to "sever the wicked from among the just" 
forever. 

Such is the character of our Lord and Eedeemer, " God mani- 
fest in the flesh ;" and " as he is, so are we (his devoted followers) 
in this world." But Christian slaveholders can "smite with the 
fist of wickedness " even their brethren in the Lord, " exact all 
their labors, bind heavy burdens, and refuse to let the people go " 
to serve him. " Is Christ, therefore, the minister of sin," as 
represented by his friends? Is he an oppressor, a tyrant, a cor- 



20 THE LAW AND THE TESTIMONY 

rupter and destroyer of the souls for whom he died? God 
forbid. 

O, that Christians would " cease to pervert the right ways of 
the Lord," and to cause the enemies of the cross of Christ " to 
blaspheme that worth}'- name by which they are called." 



VI. THE LEGAL SANCTION CONSIDERED. 

Judged by the principles and teachings of the Bible, we have 
learned that slaveholding is "a heinous crime; yea, an iniquity 
to be punished b}'- the judges." But still its advocates contend, 
that "the laws of the land" may authorize and sanction it, by 
which it becomes a righteous and honorable practice. This is 
the avowed sentiment of nearly all individuals and parties who 
are in any way concerned in the administration of our civil gov- 
ernment. Indeed, it is the almost universal opinion of our 
people, that "Slavery is the creature of laAv;" that in nearly half 
our states it is "a legal institution;" that the government and 
people of the Union are bound, by the public faith, and "the 
compromises of the Constitution," to respect and defend " the 
vested rights of slaveholders." And it must be conceded that 
our Government, in all its departments, does iiracticaU]) sustain 
the right of existing slaveholders lo hold property in men ; does 
place their conceded rights and interests on the same level with 
those of all other classes of citizens in the republic. 

Thus the practice is in great measure taken out of the sphere 
of moral and religious questions, and made a matter of state 
policy or public necessity. So Christians and ministers of the 
Word leave the whole subject with Cajsar; and obey the laws 
of the state, however unjust. 

But have the people of this land come to believe "the lowest 
lie of the infidel Hobbs," namely, that " the law of the land is the 
supreme rule of right ?" Let us see. No man is higher authority 
in the case than Henry Clay; no other has had half his influence 
in shaping national legislation on the subject. Hear him, there- 
fore: "I know there is a visionary dogma, which holds that negro 
slaves can not be the subject of property. I shall not dwell long 
on the speculative abstraction. That is property which the law 



CONCERXING SLAVERY. 21 

declares to he property. Two hundred years of legislation have 
sanctified and sanctioned negro slaves as property." Other men 
of vast influence in Church and State have been equally bold and 
explicit. When Seward referred legislators to a " higher law," 
which human laws can not annul, Daniel Webster could scout 
it as a specter, "hung up somewhere between the heavens and 
the earth." And Professor Stuart could write: "There is a 
higher law, they say. But I ask, who has discovered and determ- 
ined such a law." Many eminent theologians have asserted to 
the same effect, Avarning men not to interfere with the decisions 
of the constituted authorities, even by protest or argument. 

Thus it is claimed, that, when positive law sustains slavehold- 
ing, it is right politically; that such law gives the slaveholder 
authority, and clothes him with all the powers and prerogatives 
of an autocrat; and that the simple right of holding men as 
property, includes, of necessity, the traffic in all its branches, and 
with all its horrors. Clay asserted this also; and it is well 
known, that the inter-state slave-trade is held to be as lawful as 
any other commerce. And although we have a law denouncing 
the foreign trade as piracy, no wonder it becomes a dead letter, 
w^hile our legislation sustains the same abomination in every 
other form. 

That civil government does, in fact, sustain slaveholders' rights, 
so called, is beyond question. It is so in all the slaveholding 
states. It is so, to a great extent, in the Federal Union. The 
statutes sanction the property claim, although statute law has 
never originated or established that claim in any one state. The 
power of the nation is summoned to deliver the fugitive to his 
"owner." The judicial tribunal delivers him up to his tor- 
mentors, saying, "the law allows it, and the court awards it." 
Thus the State or Government throws its shield of protection over 
the slaveholder, as the owner of men, securing to him his prop- 
erty, authority, and sovereign power. Thus it sustains several 
hundred thousands of extortioners and oppressors, under insti- 
tutions based on the acknowledged equal rights of all men. A 
republican government, defying all despotic power, abjuring even 
the shadow of monarchy or aristocracy, submits itself to the 
most odious monopoly and usurpation on the face of the earth. 



22 THE LAW AND THE TESTDIONY 

The great moral interests of the whole nation are brought under 
the control of a very small minority of the people — an oligarchy 
ruling nominal freemen with a rod of iron. 

The Federal Constitution has been pressed into the service of 
the slaveholders from the beginning. Plad we space it were easy 
to show, that it is for that end falsely interpreted, tortured, and 
perverted from its true and obvious intent; that its letter and 
spirit throughout support the freedom and equal rights of " all 
the people" of these United States. If this be so, our pro-slavery 
laws and decisions not only contravene the universal moral law, 
but subvert the foundation of our own rights and liberties. But 
if the Constitution, on the contrary, be itself pro-slavery, then, 
indeed, is our error original and fundamental; freedom and 
righteousness are enthroned in profession, but enchained or ex- 
iled in fact; our boasted republic is a sham, and our independ- 
ence a mockery of the hopes of an enslaved world. 

But we must bring this arrogant assumption of power by a 
human government to the ordeal of conscience and the Bible. 
Can civil rulers enact laws irrespective of the Divine law, or in 
direct conflict with God's revealed will? Can they innocently 
violate, or justly authorize others to violate, any enactment of 
Jehovah ? Can they make a law of theirs higher than his ? Can 
they repeal, annul, or pour contempt upon his law, written by his 
own hand on tables of stone, and on fleshly tables of the heart? 
Can they "sanction," authorize, "sanctify," or make just and 
right, man-stealing, extortion, " merchandise in the bodies and 
Bouls of men," and whatever act of oppression is involved in 
slaveholdiug? Is any such enactment a law, which either God 
or man is bound to respect? We appeal to the Ruler of the 
nations, " Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, 
which frameth mischief by a law? They gather themselves 
together against the soul of the righteous, and condemn the in- 
nocent blood. But the Lord is my defense, and my God is the 
rock of my refuge." 

The advocates of legal supremacy can not object to this crite- 
rion ; for none are more clamorous than they for implicit sub- 
ject'on to "the powers that be," because those powers "are 
ordained of God," to whom all "must needs be subject, not only 



CONCERNING SLAVERY. 23 

for wrath, but also for conscience' sake." Does the Bible, there- 
fore, give to civil rulers any warrant for legalizing the practices 
of the slaveholder ? 

Numerous proofs of the following propositions will readily 
occur to every reflecting reader of the sacred volume, and fur- 
nish a conclusive reply. 

"The Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it 
to whomsoever he will;" often, in his wise and righteous provi- 
dence, "setting up over it tlie basest of men;" using tyrants as 
a sword in his own hand, to punish or correct an offending 
people. • 

His universal requirement of rulers is, " that they be just men, 
jniling in the fear of God," holding them to a strict account for 
the perversion of their power and authority. 

He forbids injustice, partiality, oppression, and all iniquity in 
rulers, still more vehemently than in their subjects. 

He has signally punished the rulers of many nations, who, like 
Jeroboam, sinned and made their people sin, dashing them in 
pieces like a potter's vessel. 

By his word and providence he has shown his approbation of 
those who refused to obey the unjust and impious mandates of 
ungodly rulers. 

When rulers give a legal sanction to any iniquity of the people, 
the latter are not thereby justified or excused in the sight of 
God. Both are guilty confederates in rebellion against him. 

Jehovah, therefore, has never given to civil government a right 

to " decree unrighteous decrees, to turn away the needy 

from judgment, and to take away the right from the poor of his 
people, that widows may be their prey, and that they may rob the 
fatherless." 

But ours are all popular or democratic governments ; and may 
not the jjeople have made laws to sanction slaveholding ? They 
have done so in the letter; but such laws are unjust, and should 
be regarded as a nullity. Suppose all the white men in the 
colony of Virginia had been slaveholders. They formed an inde- 
pendent state government; and unanimously decreed, that the 
slaves they before held individually should be treated as property 
in all courts of law. This company of slaveholders could not 



24 THE LAW COy.CERNING SLAVERY.' 

confer on the body politic a right or power which they had not 
as individuals. What slaves they had before their union were 
held "by might without right;" and all their possible legal 
sanctions are no better. 

The conclusion is inevitable, that every political or legal sanc- 
tion professedly given to slaveholding, is a sinful act of the gov- 
ernment and people, in no degree diminishing the crime of 
individual oppressors. 

Says Blackstone: "The law of nature, being coeval with man- 
kind, and dictated by God himself, is, of course, superior in 
obligatioft-io any other. It is binding all over tlie globe, in aJl 
countries, at all times. No human laws have any validity, if 
contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their 
force and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this 
original." 

Says Lord Brougham: " Tell me not of rights— of the property 
of the planter in his slaves. In vain you tell me of the laws 
which sanction such a claim. There is a law above all the 
enactments of human codes. It is the law written by the finger 
of God upon the heart of man. And by that law, eternal and 
unchangeable, while men despise fraud, and loathe rapine, and 
abhor blood, they shall reject with indignation the wild and 
guilty fantasy, that man can hold property in man." 
" Ah, sinful nation, Church, people ;— laden with iniquity, a seed 
of evil-doers, children that are corrupters. We have forsaken 
the Lord; ice have i)rovohed the Holy One of Israel unto anger ; 
we have gone aivay backward. If we despise the cause of our 
enslaved brother when he contendeth with us, ichat then shall we 
do when God riseth up? and when he visiteth, what shall we 
answer him ? 



AMERICAN REFORM TRACT AND BOOK SOCIETY, CINCINNATI, OHIO. 



H 33 89 ig 












^^ *o>.o- <i,\ 































^0' 






i:.° *'^'%. 







































•^^0* 






HECKMAN 

BINDERY INC. 



^i. APR 89 

N. MANCHESTER, 
^^^^ INDIANA 46962 




^,* 1> 






